Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 338 days. The assessee claimed this was due to a typographical error in reporting the Written Down Value (WDV) of trucks, with the AO making an addition based on this discrepancy. The assessee's AR submitted that the WDV of the previous year was Rs.4,55,000/-, but it was mistakenly written as Rs.65,15,646/- in the return.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay and condoned it based on the assessee's affidavit and the Sr. DR's no objection. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO for verification of the typographical error. The AO is to examine the closing WDV and any new capital asset acquisition to determine if the WDV mentioned in the return was indeed a typographical error.
Key Issues
Whether the discrepancy in the Written Down Value (WDV) of trucks reported in the return is a typographical error, and if so, whether the addition made by the AO on this basis should be deleted.
Sections Cited
44AE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 28/05/2024 passed in Appeal No. CIT(A), Sambalpur/1050/2018-19 for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. At the outset, it is found that the appeal of the assessee is barred by 338 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which are plausible and not found to be false. Ld.Sr. DR also did not raise any serious objection to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 338 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the assessment in the case of the assessee was done under 44AE of the Act. It was the submission that the assessee owns two trucks. The WDV of the previous year was Rs.4,55,000/-, however, without reporting the same in the return of income in the relevant assessment year, the same was mistakenly written as Rs.65,15,646/-. It was the submission that this was a typographical error and the AO had made the addition of Rs.60,60,646/- representing the difference between the WDV disclosed of Rs.65,15,646/- and the closing WDV of Rs.4,55,000/- of the previous year. It was the submission that the addition was only on account of typographical error, therefore, the same may be deleted.
In reply, ld. Sr. DR has no objection, if the issues are restored to the file of the ld. AO for examination as to whether actually there is a typographical error. It was fairly conceded by the ld. Sr. DR that if it is a typographical error, the AO would delete the same.
We have considered the rival submissions. We find merit in the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR. In these circumstances, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.AO for verification as to whether the same is a typographical error. The AO shall examine the closing WDV of the previous year. The AO shall examine as to whether there is any acquisition of the new capital asset in the form of trucks during the preceding assessment year. If there is no acquisition of any asset, then obviously the WDV would be Rs.4,55,000/- and not Rs.65,15,646/-. The AO shall verify these facts and if it is found that the WDV as mentioned in